Timeline for Methodology: Writing unit tests for another developer
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2019 at 18:18 | audit | First posts | |||
| Jul 3, 2019 at 18:18 | |||||
| Jun 20, 2019 at 1:29 | comment | added | ArTs | “Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast.” This is apparently a Spec Ops slogan. Everyone seems to know that doing things right is the fastest way. | |
| Jun 19, 2019 at 12:09 | comment | added | Laurent LA RIZZA | @ThomasOwens: Well, the cost of quality is only perceived, not real. Once your test passes (and you've tidied your code), the scenario described by your test is done and secured, and you get confidence it works as expected. It's done, and you can move on. If you move on without the certainty that the code works, you just accepted a debt that you'l have to perform the checks later. Debts cost, not the absence of debts. I mean, the "future" you talk about is as soon as your first test passes. | |
| Jun 19, 2019 at 12:01 | comment | added | Thomas Owens♦ | @LaurentLARIZZA That seems correct. I suppose a better way of saying it would be "The practice of pair programming is not about speed in the now, but quality and speed in the future." It's definitely a forward looking practice to find issues earlier, improve robustness of work, and share knowledge to tear down silos. All of these have a cost now that will often pay rewards in the future. | |
| Jun 19, 2019 at 10:36 | comment | added | Laurent LA RIZZA | The practice of pair programming is not about speed, but quality. Pair TDD is about quality, that brings speed of completion, which brings lower costs of development. It's just our industry learning what masons have known for millenials: your wall will be built better in less time, with less effort and less cost if you waste some time setting up a string line first and mason rule, then lay your bricks, than if you lay your brick and try to adjust afterwards with spirit level and mallet. And get help with things. | |
| Jun 18, 2019 at 17:39 | comment | added | neontapir | In my experience, the rework costs outweigh the benefits of this approach. I'd rather have a pair trade off these duties using 'ping-pong' or another method. | |
| Jun 18, 2019 at 5:33 | vote | accept | franiis | ||
| Jun 18, 2019 at 5:33 | comment | added | franiis | Thank you, my idea assumes that both features are developed in the same way (but developers exchange roles) - just to clarify, not to defend sense of that concept. I like your answer and your focus on speed vs quality. | |
| Jun 17, 2019 at 13:00 | history | answered | Thomas Owens♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |